Anti-dumping disclosure challenges require reasoned consideration of factual objections before final duty determination.

In anti-dumping proceedings, where the factual basis of the disclosure statement is specifically challenged, the designated authority must consider the petitioners' representation and any supplementary representation on merits and pass a reasoned order before final determination. The Court indicated that alleged inaccuracies in the factual and circumstantial inputs, including inputs drawn from the Covid-19 period, required proper examination rather than mechanical disposal. It also permitted reliance on relevant contemporary GST data for factual assessment and directed the authority to keep in view the disclosure statement's own requirement and the proviso to Rule 17(1) of the AD Rules, 1995. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the designated authority should consider the petitioners' representation and any supplementary representation regarding alleged incorrect factual and circumstantial inputs in the disclosure statement and pass a reasoned order before final determination of the anti-dumping duty.

Analysis: The writ petition concerned the stage of disclosure in anti-dumping proceedings, where the non-injurious price and the consequential duty could be affected by the factual inputs relied upon by the designated authority. The petitioners contended that inputs drawn from the Covid-19 period may not reflect normal commercial conditions. The Court held that such representation required due consideration on merits and that the authority should not dispose of it mechanically. The Court also permitted supplementary representations and indicated that relevant contemporary GST data could be examined for a correct factual determination. The direction was consistent with the disclosure statement itself, which required replies to be considered on merits before final determination, and the authority was also asked to bear in mind the proviso to Rule 17(1) of the AD Rules, 1995.

Conclusion: The designated authority was directed to consider the petitioners' representation and any supplementary representation together, examine the relevant factual inputs, and pass a reasoned order expeditiously.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners obtained a limited procedural relief in the anti-dumping inquiry, with the matter left for fresh consideration by the designated authority on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-dumping proceedings, where the factual basis of the disclosure statement is specifically challenged, the designated authority must consider the objection on merits and pass a reasoned order rather than a mechanical one.

---